(11-05-2016 09:42 AM)Tomasia Wrote: Fewer than 1% of scientists manage to publish a paper in any given year.

Dafuq you talking 'bout Willis. Depends on the field. If I don't publish at least 3 papers a year at my place of employment I risk losing my job.

(11-05-2016 07:41 AM)Tomasia Wrote: There is no compelling evidence to suggest that the scientific method and peer review eliminate individual bias.

Dafuq you talking 'bout Willis. Go back to human resources or whatever you do 'cause you sure as shit ain't no scientist.

(11-05-2016 10:46 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: Give us examples of peer reviewed BIASED studies where the bias was not addressed or removed in the review.

There are examples of these. Off the top of my head the table top nuclear fusion fiasco in Utah and the recent mistranslation of the "natural laws" into "creator" of a PLOS article written by Chinese researchers. Peer review is a human endeavor to eliminate these biases and ensure the integrity of the results. As such, it makes mistakes.

(11-05-2016 12:25 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote: Scientists don't go into a study with any intentional biases, that is counterintuitive. Instead, they ACCOUNT for the possibility of bias within their data and/or observations. I listed a whole bunch of research a few pages ago that would have used DATA and STATISTICS to test for their biases in various ways.

So in other words they don't go in with biases and prejudices, therefore there are no biases and prejudices that get eliminated.

Quote:Science is a self-correcting method where the WHOLE purpose is self-correction and REMOVAL of biases.

I'm not sure how you can remove biases, which you just suggested don't exist when going into a study.

Tom, I got to tell you that based on your comments on this thread it is painfully clear that you lack even the most basic understanding of the scientific method to the point of being embarrassing.

Do yourself a favor and study the drawing below...there will be a quiz on Friday.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce

Do yourself a favor and study the drawing below...there will be a quiz on Friday.

A person has strong biases and prejudices.

A suggested cure to eliminate these strongly held bias and prejudices:

Have the person read the steps in the diagram and follow it, at the end of which his prejudices and biases would be eliminated.

I mean it seems pretty easy right, the cure for prejudices and biases, is just teaching people to follow the guidelines provided to them in grade school science projects? Imagine if this were true, think of the implication, we can rid the world of prejudices and biases. Perhaps educational institutions should consider this promising conclusion, if it held true that is.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."

I did, and when you painted yourself in a fucking corner, you pretend you haven't by responding with "Fuck you're stupid."

Quote:"So in other words they don't go in with biases and prejudices, therefore there are no biases and prejudices that get eliminated."

Fuck you're stupid.

Scientists go into their research with TESTABLE HYPOTHESES which they use SCIENCE through data and observation to support or reject.

So again they go into their research absent of deep biases and prejudices, just with a testable hypothesis.

"I treat science like it's a job, and you believe that stating this is peddling a conspiracy, lol. "

That's your mistake. Science isn't a job, it's a method.

"No conspiracy in pointing out that universities create research institutions, not for self-less reasons, but ultimately to serve in the interest of the universities themselves. "

The "self-interest" is in producing research, not a product. Universities and research institutions are non-profit entities. They serve the researchers and/or students, not the other way around as you continue to assert.

"I did, and when you painted yourself in a fucking corner, you pretend you haven't by responding with "Fuck you're stupid." "

You didn't even click that link to open the paper you asked for, did you? Dishonest twit.

"So again they go into their research absent of deep biases and prejudices, just with a testable hypothesis."

They conduct research with the intent of using data and evidence and statistics to account for and remove bias. Then the peer review process acts as an additional layer of bias finding and removal/treatment.

So either they don't go into a study with any intentional biases. Or those intentional biases get eliminated in the process of conducting that study. What is it?"

It's not an "either or" scenario. That is a false dichotomy.

Science and peer review are intended to CATCH biases and in the training of becoming a scientist, you are taught to AVOID biases. Typically by collecting data in a way to reduce or eliminate biases (double blind studies, random subsampling, etc).

Scientists go into research with NO INTENTIONAL BIASES and use methods of data collection and analysis to ensure that individual biases are removed or accounted for.

YOU assume that bias is an untreated problem. It isn't. You assume bias is inherent within science and persists, it doesn't. Why? Because science and the peer review process are methods of treating and removing or accounting for bias.

You ever going to read the study I directly linked to you that you asked for?

(10-05-2016 05:11 PM)Stevil Wrote: But we are talking about science and the scientific method here, not how some companies are mixing science with non science.

The meaning of what science does, is what scientists do. If you’re speaking of what science does, you're making a generalized statement as to what scientist do as a whole, either that or trying to pull a no true scotsman.

There are many scientists, probably most, that eat breakfast.

Do we then consider eating breakfast to be science?
There are some scientists, the minority, that pray?
Do we consider praying to be science?

Scientists do a great many things, some of which is science and consistent with the scientific method, some of which has nothing to do with the scientific method and which is not considered "doing science".

Sometimes, qualified scientists, decide that they don't entirely agree with the scientific method, although they do agree with most of it. When they employ their own modified method (perhaps a derivative of the scientific method) then they are doing psuedo-science and struggle to get anything past peer review or published.

But of course you know this stuff already, you're just trolling right.
Getting kicks from seeing "atheists" get upset at your outlandish statements.

Anyways, as I say "Good work" by you. I'm sure your Jesus is very proud of you. The way you are showing compassion and a genuine interest to connect with others and to take time to listen and understand.

Just to make it painfully clear what you asked for: "So show me, show me a published study, in which the researcher had a strong bias going into it, which his/her bias was eliminated in process of peer review. You claim there's a lot. Show me some."

(11-05-2016 01:32 PM)Stevil Wrote: There are many scientists, probably most, that eat breakfast.

Do we then consider eating breakfast to be science?
There are some scientists, the minority, that pray?
Do we consider praying to be science?

Scientists play a variety of occupational roles, based on their expertise and knowledge of their particular fields of study. Eating breakfast is not one of them. The scientists who works for a pharmaceutical company, is a scientist, just as his low level researcher working in Academia. You ain't pulling a no true scotsman over here, to create an illusion of some sort of pure science, to weed all the problematic bits that scientists and the establishments they work for engage in, as non-science. Or claiming that the variety of scientists who publish peer-reviewed papers, that later found to have methodological flaws, weren't doing science.

Quote:Scientists do a great many things, some of which is science and consistent with the scientific method, some of which has nothing to do with the scientific method and which is not considered "doing science".

Doing science entails a variety of things, a scientists seeking to gain FDA approval is doing science, the scientists seeking to get published in a peer review journal is doing science. All of which is within the scope of his profession.

Quote:But of course you know this stuff already, you're just trolling right.
Getting kicks from seeing "atheists" get upset at your outlandish statements.

I'm not trolling, I'm demystifying, though I'm probably having more fun with it than I should be. In the same vein as when you demystifying morality. It's easy argument to make, but for some a hard pill to swallow. The fact that some people feelings get hurt when speaking of science as anything less than perfect, to treat it as any other profession, with the sort of politics, monetary desires, serving in the self interests of their employers, plagued by the same human problems that plague all human endeavors, etc... is not my problem.

I find it both interesting, and a bit trite, the sort of dewey-eyed view of science often held by many atheists, that's almost impenetrable, a desire to imagine it as this pure, and sacrificial entity, who service is to truth for truths sake. For folks like TbD, it's blasphemy, an unforgivable sin to suggests that scientists are employees, serving in the interest of those that pay their mortgages and cable bills. He equates this with claiming that 9.11 was an inside job, unable to recognize his own hubris.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."

(11-05-2016 02:10 PM)Tomasia Wrote: I find it both interesting, and a bit trite, the sort of dewey-eyed view of science often held by many atheists, that's almost impenetrable, a desire to imagine it as this pure, and sacrificial entity, who service is to truth for truths sake. For folks like TbD, it's blasphemy, an unforgivable sin to suggests that scientists are employees, serving in the interest of those that pay their mortgages and cable bills. He equates this with claiming that 9.11 was an inside job, unable to recognize his own hubris.

We3've repeatedly asked you to back up your claims and you've come back with more claims but no back up. Your negative view of science stems purely, in my opinion, from your desire to pretend that facts are not facts, and therefore that somewhere out there some fucking stupid deity cares about you.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette

(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote: And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.